“Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”

We have reported previously on the pending “hate speech” case against our Austrian correspondent Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. The most recent post featured a CBN news report about her (links to the earlier articles are at the bottom of this post).

For the last ten months Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff has had the possibility of a formal charge hanging over her head, based on what she said last November in a seminar she gave about Islam. She has been waiting for the other shoe to drop, and now it seems that the red patent-leather stiletto heel of Austrian “justice” has finally thumped against the floor.

The travesty of the matter is that Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff did not learn of the charge filed against her through a court document.

She received no official summons.

It was not communicated through her lawyer.

No, that’s not the way they do things in modern multicultural Austria. As is typical of the corrupt soft-totalitarian state known as the “European Union”, she learned of the official charge via the Austrian media.

Here’s what she told me in an email:

I just had a long talk with my legal representation. This is a huge judicial scandal. My lawyer has tried to get the documents detailing my case and the charges. In vain. the public prosecutor cited “computer problems”, the clerks said there is a note in my case that nothing is to be made public (wonder why the media knew about it then), and he was shoved from clerk to clerk, getting nothing. So far we know that I will be tried, but nothing else.

I have nothing whatsoever in my hands. I cannot defend myself at the moment because neither my lawyer nor I know the precise charges.

It makes me wonder about our judicial system. It is outrageous that the media in both Germany and Austria knew about this before the accused.

This is the story from yesterday’s Die Presse, as translated by JLH:

FPÖ Islam Seminar: Lecturer Must Face the Court

In a seminar on Islam by the Freedom Educational Institute (FBI), Islam-hostile phrases are said to have been uttered. The lecturer has been accused of prejudicial incitement (hate speech).

There is now an epilogue to a seminar on Islam offered by the Freedom Educational Institute.

In the seminar last fall, the lecturer is said to have given vent to some expressions that were hostile to Islam. The state’s attorney for Vienna, therefore, has brought a criminal action for hate speech, as reported Wednesday in an advance article in the magazine NEWS. A conviction could mean up to three years in prison.

FBI Manager, Klaus Nittmann, as he said in answer to questions, “naturally” intends to continue using the lady as a speaker. He noted the principle of presumption of innocence and seemed convinced that hate speech would not be proved.

Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia

Nittmann sees a witch hunt directed at enlightened women: “The law must not take care that it is not made into a handmaiden of sharia. It is disturbing that women who justifiably fear Islam and express themselves critically are brought before the court.” There was no comment on the case from the head of the freedom party.

Among other things, the lecturer is alleged to have said in the seminar: “Islam is hostile. The Koran is evil” and “When cardinals rape children, they do it despite religion; Muslims rape children because of religion.”

Below is the deposition given by Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff in response to the accusations made last November. It was was filed on April 27, 2010, with the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism. Once again, many thanks to JLH for his gargantuan translation effort (MRK is the acronym for “Human Rights Convention”, and EMG is the European Human rights Court):

In reference to the announcement in the illustrated “News,” the defendant makes the following submission:

Basic commentary on basic right of freedom of expression (Art 10 MRK).

In the applicable English and French versions Art 10 Human Rights Convention runs

Freedom of expression

(1)		Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2)		The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[French version follows]

The EMG understands freedom of speech to be one of the essential supports of a democratic society as well as one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the individual fulfillment of each person. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to everyone. It makes no difference whether commercial interests are being pursued in the process. It is especially important for political parties and their representatives.

The meaning of the MRK is not the guarantee of theoretical or illusory rights, but of rights of a practical and executable nature. The freedom of expression is not only of use for “news” or “ideas” which are accepted as favorable or inoffensive or neutral, but also for those which injure, shock or disturb whether it be the state or some segment of society. Therefore, Art 10 HRC protects not only the content of the ideas and news expressed, but also the form in which it is transmitted. Beyond that, the boundaries extend further when public figures are concerned.

The adjective “necessary” in Art 10 paragraph 2 HRC means a pressing societal need. The exceptions noted in Art 10 Abs 2 MRK, therefore, are to be interpreted narrowly; this necessity is separate from testing actual or alleged public opinion at the objective level (“reasonable judgment”). In particular every formal regulation, condition, restriction or punishment which intrudes into this sphere must be proportional to the legitimate goal that is being pursued. The EUHR checks sentences to punishment especially strictly.

There is scarcely play for restrictions on political remarks or discussions of affairs of public interest.

As noted above, the freedom of expression allows an intensified criticism of the state or its representatives, as well as public figures. Since religious communities must be in the public view as institutions, they must also be content to be subject to such criticism.

It is essential that restriction of freedom of expression by the state may only occur when it is “necessary” in a democratic society in the sense of Art 10 paragraph 2 MRK. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the state. What must be proved is the necessity of the restriction of the freedom of expression, not the necessity of expressing what was said in the form in which it was delivered. To put it another way: In contrast to encroachments on basic rights in accordance with paragraph 2,there is no law of proportionality for the acknowledgment of freedom in the protected area of Art 10 Abs 1 HRC.

In light of Art 10 HRC, the Strasbourg instances have deemed even much sharper expressions than those made by the defendant to be covered by the fundamental right of freedom of expression (c.f. European Human Rights Convention, where it concerned accusations, according to which there was nothing more deceptive than this religious community and it was the “cholera of spiritual life”).

In accordance with Art 10 paragraph 1 HRC, it is essential that the unrestricted communication of true facts be allowed; only in the area of protection of indiscretion (protection of private life and similar), which plays no role here, does something different apply in part.

The Facts of the Case

The accused is the daughter of a retired diplomat. She experienced Khomeini’s takeover in Iran, and later lived in Iraq and in Kuwait. She was held hostage with other Austrians during the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops in 1990. She lived and worked in Iraq and Libya as a staff member of the Austrian embassy. From 1995 to 1997, she was in the cabinet of former vice chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel. The defendant is presently internationally active for the “Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa” of German Islam critic Willi Schwendt.

The accused feels herself committed to those values represented in the Western democracies. To these values belong, especially, gender equality and combating all radical, violence-oriented religious and political trends.

Concerning individual statements by the accused:

“Islam is hostile.”

It is a truism that Islam sows violence. The most spectacular cases in recent years were the terror attack 9/11/2001 in New York and the bomb attacks in Madrid 4/11/ 2004 and London 7/7/2005. But these are only three examples of thousands of acts of violence motivated by Islam in recent years, as foreseen so precisely in the Koran — cf. Sura 2, 216: “It is decreed that you fight against the infidels, even though it may be abhorrent to you.”

There are over 200 calls for violence (!) in the Koran: (As further examples, cf., for instance, Suras 9,74; 4,95; 8,12). An especially sad example is the murder of the American businessman, Nicholas Evan Berg, who was kidnapped and murdered by Muslims in Iraq in 2004. His murder — filmed and later broadcast by Islamic internet and television — was especially repugnant. He was beheaded alive with a knife. In the course of this disgraceful act, the masked perpetrators read aloud Sura 8, 12: “Strike the infidel on his neck with your sword.”

“Islam is vicious and Muslims are in a perpetual state of war with us.”

This statement merely reiterates what runs as a theme through the Koran for example, Sura 4,76: “Those who are believers fight against those who are unbelievers for the sake of idols. Fight now against the friends of Satan!”

“And they are very good at lulling us.”

Sura 3, 54 says: “And they crafted a ruse and Allah crafted a ruse, and Allah is the best crafter of ruses.” This verse is the basis for the so-called “taqiyya” — the commanded deception of infidels, which is based on the Koran and widely broadcast in Islam.

“And the ultimate goal of Muslims is that the whole world convert to Islam.”

Sura 5, 44 says: “Those who do not live according to what Allah has sent down, they are the infidels.”

The content of these Suras visualizes that jihad (“holy war”) will be waged to achieve Islam’s ultimate goal, that is, establishing an Islamic domination over the whole world.

Islam is not just a religion, but also a form of government.

Evidence: www.wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3902&Alias=wzo&cob=334929 (Appendix./2)

Mark A. Gabriel — that is the pseudonym of an Ex-Professors of Islamic history at Al-Azhar Universität in Cairo, who converted to Christianity in 1993-—contemplates on page 59 of his book, “Islam and Terrorism”, what the Koran means by Suras 8, 39 and 9, 5: “And fight against them until there is no more civil war and everyone believes in Allah.” “And when the holy months are past, kill the heathen wherever you find them. Seize them, surround them and ambush them everywhere.”

“The Koran says that all those who do not believe in Allah shall be killed.”

For people who have accepted Islam, the belief and the law of Islam as expression of the will of God form the center of their lives. Faith determines all other dimensions of life and action, gives their works substance and value. Unbelief is the greatest sin; it makes the works of the person and negligible worthless.

The Koran similarly judges the fall from faith and condemns apostate with the utmost severity: Their repentance will not be accepted. The combined curse of God, the angels and humanity will lie upon them, and when they die in that state, they will spend eternity in hell fire.

Here is an example from the book, “Islam and Terrorism” pages 38 f.: Mark Gabriel reports on the scenes that played out after he let his father know that he had converted to Christianity — his father reacted completely in accord with Islamic teachings. “With a voice made hoarse by rage, he cried: “Your brother has converted! I must kill him before the day is out!” To his daughter, he said: “Your brother has converted. He has fallen away from the faith. I must kill him immediately.”

Proof: www.derprophet.info/inhalt/abfall-vom-glauben.htm (Appendix./3)

“Muslims kill because of their religion.”

There are countless Suras in the Koran that have the exhortation to kill:

Sura 2, 178 says: “You faithful! With a killing, retaliation is required: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave and a female for a female.”

In addition, the following Suras:

Sura 2,191: “And kill them (that is, the infidel opponents) wherever you find them and drive them out from where they have driven you out.”

Sura 2,193: “And fight against them until no one is trying to seduce (believers into falling away from Islam) and Allah is revered.”

Sura 2, 216: “It is required of you to fight against the infidels although it is abhorrent to you.

In general, the Koran contains a great number of suras which contain violations of the must basic of fundamental rights and the rights of every democratic, pluralistic society, blatantly exhorting to murder, manslaughter, rabble-rousing, slandering of confessions, maiming, wife- and child-beating. Added to that is the fact that home invasion and theft — violations of equality and personal rights are approved and freedom of conscience is denied.

The call to battle against the infidels is a dominant theme in the Koran. See, e.g., the following suras:

Sura 2, 244: “And fight for the will of Allah.”

Sura 4, 74: “And if someone fights for Allah’s sake, and he is killed or he is victorious, we will reward him mightily (in the Hereafter).”

Sura 4, 76; “Those who believe fight for the sake of Allah, those who do not fight for the sake of idols. Fight against the friends of Satan.”

Sura 4, 104: “And do not falter in your readiness to seek out the enemy and offer him battle.

Sura 9, 111: “Now they (the faithful) must fight of the will of Allah and kill or e killed.”

Sura 47,35: “Do not falter (in your battle lust) and do not offer the enemy peace (too early) if you may(ultimately) have the upper hand.”

To this point, Mark Gabriel quotes on p.44 of his above-cited book Umar Abd ar-Rahman — one of the masterminds of the first bomb attack on the World Trade Center in New York in which 1993 — “There is a whole sura which is called ‘the plunder of war.’ There is no sura called’ peace.’ Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. Remove them and you behead Islam.”

Proof: Several actual examples of murder and calls to murder directed against critics of Islam:

• Salman Rushdie (Appendix./4)
  
• Geert Wilders (Appendix./5)
  
• Theo van Gogh (Appendix./6)
  
• Pim Fortuyn (Appendix./7)
  
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Appendix./8)
  
• Mohammed Cartoons (Appendix./9)

As may been seen from this, no possession is so valuable to Muslims that it may not be killed or destroyed by Muslim intolerance.

“You learn to trust no Muslim because they lie to our faces every day. it is their religious duty.”

This Comment is based on sura 3, 54: “And they created a ruse and Allah created a ruse, and Allah is best at creating deceit.”

This sura is the basis of the requirement to deceive infidels (taqiyya).

Proof: islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/03/netherlands-ramadan-unmasked.html (Appendix./10); barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/muslim-lies-learn-how-to-recognize-taqiyya-islamic-art-of-deception/ (Appendix./11)

“One of the greatest problems today is that the highest law for Muslims is to live exactly as Mohammed lived.”

The Koran defines how one has to live. It is established in its suras that Mohammed, must be the measure of all things, the great model. The believing Muslim should and must be like him. This gives rise to an immense scenario of conflict and danger, especially if you — like the accused — represent Western values.

Proof: www.pi-news.net/2008/04/kizilkaya-mohammed-is-model-for-every-muslim/ (Appendix./12)

“And he liked doing something with children.”

One of the most repulsive crimes of humanity is the sexual abuse and rape of children and minors

Countless platforms are involved not only with the rights of children, but with protecting them from violence and sexual abuse — also naturally all political parties.

Most politicians overlook the fact that an abuse which is approved, even ordered on a supra-political — namely religious — basis, especially for mindless fanatics, stands, so to speak, above the prevailing law of the individual state, since the Koran is the sole moral guide of the waves of immigrants who are largely non-European, not formed by Western civilization not even able to speak the local language. (See also the perverse justification by Aisha, given to Mohammed as a bride was not 6 but 9 years old (!), which exemplifies the immense sense of guilt of believing Muslims.

Proof: muslimwelt.wordpress.com/2007/12/28was-the-prophet-a-child-molester/ (Appendix./13).

Aisha (Allah’s blessing upon her) reported: the messenger of Allah, Allah’s blessing and salvation on him, undertook to marry me when I was 6 years old and had marital relations with me when I was 9 years old. We went to Medina. I had a fever there and my hair grew until it reached my earlobes. Umm Roman came to me while I was on a swing with my playmates She called me loudly. I went to her but did not know what she wanted of me. She took my hand and had me stand in the door. I said H, Ha, as if I had choked. She led me into a house i which several women of Ansar were gathered. They expressed blessings and wished me good luck. She left me with these women. They washed my head and adorned me. Nothing frightened me except that the messenger of Allah, Allah’s blessing and salvation on him, was coming in the morning and I was dedicated to him.

Number of the Hadith in the Sahih Muslim [only in Arabic]: 2547.

While the Catholic Church is trying to battle pedophilia in it ranks, Muslim representatives of Islam especially in the Near and Middle East, do not even want to recognize it as a problem.

The incompatibility with the values of Western civilization is also shown impressively in the following facts, to be found in individual links:

Proof:

• diestandard.at/1250691316889/Saudi-Arabien-80-year-old insists on marriage to ten-year-old (Appendix./14)
  
• www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/international/saudischer... (Appendix./15)
  
• www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,601306,00.html (Appendix./16)
  
• www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/04/yemeni-child-brides-aisha-and-quran-654.html (Appendix./17)
  
• www.news.at/articles/1014/15/266062/tragisches-fate of 13-year-old girl—Yemen—marriage (Appendix./18)

“‘Housewife’s Kit to Resist Islamization’ A Compact Introduction to Agitation?”

First to be noted is that this statement comes from the NEWS reporter, not the accused. This article is located on a democratic platform on the internet and is intended as a guideline to discussions of Islam for those who are working for the peaceful future of Europe and are interested in the preservation of Western values fought for through centuries of bloodshed and wars, and in the peaceful co-existence of the progeny of the present generation.

Proof: missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/the-housewife%E2%80%99s-kit/ (Appendix./19)

The Association “Mission Europe Netzwerk Karl Martell” pursues the goal of preserving and nurturing the culture and civilization of the European continent, which has matured for centuries, and defending it against destructive influences.

The most varied politically, religiously motivated murders (see above under “Muslims kill because of their religion”) demonstrate how dangerous Islam is and how intensely one must defend against its “believers.”

“Posts anti-Islamic articles on the internet.”

To be sure, this statement is by the accused, but is taken out of context. The meaning was that one ought to take part in discussions and also communicate a critical attitude toward the Islam that glorifies violence.

“Eight facts which speak against Islam.”

This referred to ex-Muslim Arzu Toker, who, in her writings, gave 16 reasons for leaving Islam.

Proof: www.arzutoker.de/sechzehn_gruende.htm (Appendix./20)

“Under no circumstances say that we of FPÖ are against Islam. That is not politically clever. Religious freedom will hit us like a ton of bricks. Leave Islam out of your vocabulary and talk about sharia. Among ourselves and in your heart, naturally you can be against Islam. But don’t take that into public.”

This quote is false at its core. The accused did not say, “we of the FPÖ.” She is not a member of the FPÖ.

Since sharia is an inseparable part of Islam and is not compatible with Austrian and European legal precepts, a position must be taken against it. Anything else would be criminal. And insofar as you are against sharia, you are against Islam.

Add to this that Islamic legal scholars want to expand the practice of sharia to non-believers

Wanting is not the end of it: According to the Koran, sharia must be applied to both Muslims and non-Muslims (“infidels”), because sharia regulates life among Muslims and between and unbelievers.

Proof: www.katholisches.info/?p=1298 (Appendix./21)

Audience member: “There is already integration and Muslims who can re-think.”

“It would be nice if it were true, but consider where his loyalties are when things get hot. Once a Turk, always a Turk.”

A good Muslim who lives according to Allah’s law and the Koran will never put loyalty to the state above loyalty to Islam. […]

Islamic law insists on that. Muslims loyal to Islam have difficulty being loyal to the state if the state they live in is not Islamic. A true Muslim believes that the whole world is his home and that he has the task of subjecting the world to the rule of Islam. (see Mark A. Gabriel, “Islam und Terrorismus”, pp. 70 ff).

“A Muslim taxi driver who did not want let and woman and her friend with a dog into his taxi.”

This statement too is not original with the accused, but is a factual report. There are countless proofs. A participant in the discussion reported having the same experience.

Proof:

• www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/fitzgerald-on-dogs-and-statues-in-islam.html (Appendix./22)
  
• www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2051804_blind_passenger... (Appendix./23)
  
• 97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=756 (Appendix./24)

“When cardinals rape children, they do it in spite of religion. Muslims rape because of religion.”

This statement has its basis in the irrefutable effect and function of the example of Mohammed (see above). Mohammed consummated his marriage with a nine-year old.

“Europe is voluntarily subjugating itself to the Arabic world.”

This comment is taken out of context. The comprehensive discussion and critique of the influence Islam exerts on Europe.

Proof:

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabien (Appendix./25); leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2009/03/islamist-bastard-tells-truth.html (Appendix./26)

“Besides, Muslims go into the army with a different purpose. It has to do with infiltration.’

The basis for this statement is substantiated research, at least in the US after the devastating attack on the World Trade Center by Muslims. Accompanying facts are given.

Proof: www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/is_it_possible_for... (Appendix./27); www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/111877 (Appendix./28)

“Performance of Mozart’s opera ‘Idomeneo’ was canceled because of the fear of riots.”

This is a statement of facts.

Proof: www.focus.de/kultur/kunst/idomeneo-absage_aid_116399.html (Appendix./29)

“It is threatened by ‘stealth jihad,’ which attempts to spread Islam in Europe by non-violent means.”

Among people interested in international politics, “secret jihad” is understood to be Muslim immigration and high birth rate in comparison to the rest of the population, as a means of spreading Islam in Europe and other non-Islamic countries. (see also Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs by Robert Spencer).

Proof: 97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33268 (Appendix./30)

“Demography jihad, immigration jihad, love jihad.”

These catchphrases are no creation of the defendant, but contemporary concepts of current, serious, political reportage and part of the terminology of recognized research worldwide on the phenomenon of the spread of Islam in non-Muslim countries.

Proof:

• www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb- transforming-our-continent.html (Appendix./31)
  
• blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100007334/muslim-immigration-the-most-radical-change-in-european-history/ (Appendix./32)
  
• www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Have-babies-Muslims-UK-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-UK.html (Appendix./33)

“Muslim young men make sure that non-Muslim girls fall in love with them, just so that they will convert.”

This is one of the paraphrases for the “Love-Jihad.” The characteristic of these concepts show, on the one hand, how problematic this subject is — especially in those countries where Muslims are a larger proportion of the population than in Austria — and on the other hand, how very much people internationally occupy or may occupy themselves scientifically and statistically by this theme, while in Austria it is best to say nothing about it, or otherwise be persecuted like a serious criminal. See the following on the subject, “Love-Jihad.”

Proof:

www.hindujagruti.org/news/6389.html (Appendix./34)

dolomitengeisteu-dolomitengeist.blogspot.com/2009/10/islamlove-jihad-und-romeo-jihad-in.html (Appemdix./35)

www.dailypioneer.com/221767/Love-Jihad-is-real-says-Kerala-High-Court.html (Appemdix./36)

www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=391:why-muslims-seduce-rape-marry-non-muslim-girls&catid=73:brahmachari&Itemid=58 (Appendix./37)

“Freedom of expression is in danger. Who here would dare to go out into the street and say: “Islam is crap”?

The quote is correct but taken out of context. The defendant used these words consciously, to show by means of a stark example how things stand with freedom of expression.

With this statement, she wanted it to make it clear that it would not be possible to make such a statement without suffering consequences. At the same time, she indicated that naturally none of those assembled would use such a phrase, because it would be crass.

“Statistics follow, which show what percentage of Muslims (in the population) cause what kind of problems. At 20% of the population there will be murders, riots, churches burned down. All that is before us.”

This is a restatement of the research of Doctor Peter Hammond, an African theologian who served in several crisis areas of Africa. He set down his experiences and researches in his book: “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”

Proof: 97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675 (Appendix./38)

Further evidence about the discriminatory and aggressive tendency of Islam is found in www.amazon.com/Slavery-Terrorism-Islam-Historical-Contemporary/dp/0958454981.

“It is important that we all undertake something against these circumstances. We must not let ourselves be silenced. Everything I say is characterized as Islamophobia, xenophobia, or hate speech. I don’t take things like that seriously.”

The defendant was here addressing “modern” politics whose public image is first and foremost busy with isolating and slandering. The closer one is to the core of the truth and the more one demonstrates solidarity with the feelings of the voting public, so much more is one publicly pilloried by reality averse politicians and the media.

Hereto a link which shows how often and massively the Koran incites discriminatory, racist and xenophobic action.

Proof: www.eussner.net/artikel_2007-12-19_18-02- 08.html (Appendix./42)

“…why you must not do business with Muslims.’

This statement is false. Part III of the seminar series even deals with it. There is no question of not wanting to do business with Muslims. The reverse is true. Muslims are forbidden to do business with infidels.

One Islamic law says, “that everything that contributes to haram (things and actions which are forbidden in Islam) is itself haram” (Al-Qaradawi, p. 49)

“…and equates Muslims with terrorists”

This statement was not by the defendant.

Concerning the statement of facts of § 283 paragraph 2 StGB

Naturally the statement of facts of § 283 paragraph 2 StGB should be interpreted in conformity with the constitution.

Rabble-rousing (hetzen) presumes a biased incitement to hat and contempt.

Incitement is present when emotions are passionately awakened in others, which are removed from rational control and are intended to lead to one of them deciding on his own to undertake the proscribed actions.

The defendant spoke in sharp terms but factually, on the basis of the most comprehensive research on the subject of Islam and problems which arise from implementation of imperatives passed on in the Koran. Based on her objectivity and constant endeavor to document her claims meticulously, the defendant is lacking the presumed “impetuosity” in the sense of emotion-driven lack of objectivity. For this reason alone, the factual proof is not met.

In addition, the defendant called for neither proscribed action nor for hatred or contempt.

Aside from the fact that the defendant neither reviled nor insulted (anyone), she never tried to stir up her listeners or create feelings of hatred in them. Quite the contrary: When discussion began in her lectures, the defendant called again and again for objectivity and cool reason, and regularly emphasized that her critical analysis is always concerned with Islam as a teaching and ideology and not with “the” Muslims.

It has already been demonstrated, under Point III above, that the defendant’s representation was not distorted, but was based entirely on facts. The broadcasting of true facts is allowed without restriction (see I).

An injury to human dignity is only present when the members of the group in question are affected in the vital core of their being.

The required “denigration” by designating the members of a group as inferior or something similar did not occur. Quite the contrary: The entirety of the defendant’s statements are verifiable. Therefore, if some of the examples offered by the defendant are embarrassing or unpleasant for adherents of the Islamic religious group, and if they find this disparaging, then it is to be ascribed to the facts and not to the defendant, who only repeated the facts.

Even if the objective proof were taken as accomplished, subjective proof is lacking. Indeed, this requires, in terms of characteristics of agitation, that the perpetrator at a minimum seriously considers it possible to incite hate and contempt, and is comfortable with that.

Contempt is a strong emotional feeling of disdain based on the conviction of the worthlessness of the persons or institutions in question. According to Meyers Encyclopedia of 1905, “Contempt is the feeling that stems from the presumption of personal worthlessness, in the case of oneself (self-contempt) or of others (contempt).”

Hate is a human emotion of sharp and abiding antipathy. Proceeding from the capacity for intense, negative feelings, the concept is also used figuratively and stands in general for strongest form of alienation, contempt and repulsion.

In her presentations, the defendant was exclusively concerned with explaining and warning about imminent, drastic changes regarding democracy, pluralism, freedom of expression and gender equality, if the Islamization of Austria and Europe is not countered by political discourse.

The defendant’s intention was neither to cause emotional denigration nor contempt nor repulsion toward members of the Islamic religious community or Islam itself. The defendant did and does want only to clarify and warn in vivid terms.

As to further possible kinds of acts according to § 283 paragraph 2 StGB, there is a complete lack of evidence of insult or disdain, especially injury to human dignity.

Finally, let it be emphasized once more: Article 10 HRC is also protective, specifically of those utterances which injure, shock or disturb. It is, after all, always allowable to sing songs of praise to the regime in power or the controlling opinion of the moment; for that, no one needs the basic right of freedom of expression.

Last not least: “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty [1869]).

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, MA

Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009		Dec		5		Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
				11		Heckling the Counterjihad
				14		Whose Law?
				17		Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010		Mar		11		A Mother and an Activist
				20		An Austrian “Hate School”
				22		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
				29		Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
		Sep		9		“Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”